ÿWPC/  ˆøŸ8¹? =|fõñ¿‚íjd]%¯:5H–“"Ñ„Ò+ò“!¦ó¹¨xýÉ«Ilߟi×|Gâm’ŽŸŠÀ·Z€Ð«]yH%‰Œ›;èò¾F>BˆRûÕŒÚê‰Z €Ä”§ækCî*âÿòBo¤_…ÀGÎ@YêGHÍ.d|9ã†ßÞÖ&Ôÿâxm Üâ… 톳wÑ]Œ˜_øJã2‚äfNÿÑȧhQ- j3!¹Q9¨ã@Ÿ“ò¾•œ0Š2 n¼Õ>JÄR׿<óýµ‡rÇKà¦q ’Â¥°?3õµæ‰«JhÐ_ Ø› ' 7aòõJf'¤¹uµKLr Á«[y¡ÿ4’¸y³¬É`JüzÌfÆâˆì8í%¡d”Àþ±q3”öø~ó`kQ@ñ¡M7ažÈ5,÷Çv<.m럒ZZ8 `ùg¯@[t„2ø´¥ë#ÃaˆëÏ' v~u}-Ó&ÖèUöBóå\«Im[ü_£˜®BÁÿàÜTvò»ý ž !é£u$]I\5ßÞ;‚³¸¾‹—ÔÉD²É–V)# >UNI %— 0(U:Åbÿw@4G[jrU:vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv AQ°Æ 0DÇ 0D 0DO O D/“ B Bß D3ü ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6HPBXLBÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,Ù¹6 AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- + U, U- U. U/ 0 U1 U2 U3 Ó€= n~<$3|x=  úÝ ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ X¹ XXXÔÔ€ Lj  X X¹ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ X¹ X  LjÔÐ  ÐÌAugust€19,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,–ûyAZ‹"Arial Regular !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd&&&&'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Š™ŠXXÔÔ€ŠzrŠŠŠ™ÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€QñXXdæXXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñ= ññ3 ñßr€ (<,(j 8` `€€@E f ` ttx0X` ð ærßñ3 ññ= ññ= ññ= ñIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  Ðñ= ññ= ñÌñ= ññ= ñAT€JACKSONÌñ= ñœßt€ (>.*jxn7` `€€@EŽ ` ttx0ÆH J  tß›ñ= ñÌMAY€SESSION,€1999ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À àà  à)€€€€€€€C.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9802„CR„00053Ð  À Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àó óÐ ¸  Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellee,ò òà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€€SHELBY€COUNTYÐ °  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€€ÌV.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€€HON.€BERNIE€WEINMAN,€JUDGEÐ    Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€€ÌAARON€A.€WINTERS€andà À àà  à)€€€€€€€Ô‡&ÃC&ŠŠzrÔ(FIRST€DEGREE€MURDER;€ESPECIALLY€Ô#†ŠzrŠ&&ÃCv#Ô€€Ð ð  ÐDERWIN€V.€THOMAS,€à h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€€Ô‡&ÃC&ŠŠzrÔAGGRAVATED€ROBBERY;€CONSPIRACY€ó óÐ èˆ ÐÔ#†ŠzrŠ&&ÃC.#Ôà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€€Ô‡&ÃC&ŠŠzrÔò òTO€COMMIT€MURDER;€ESPECIALLYó óÔ#†ŠzrŠ&&ÃC÷#ÔÐ à€ Ѐà ` àà ¸ àAppellants.à h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€€Ô‡&ÃC&ŠŠzrÔò òAGGRAVATED€KIDNAPPING)ó ó€Ô#†ŠzrŠ&&ÃCÀ#ÔÐ Øx ÐÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTSóó:à À àà  àòòà p àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð ¸X ÐÌò òSTEPHEN€R.€LEFFLERà h àà À àà  àà p àMICHAEL€E.€MOOREÐ ¨H Ðó óCounsel€for€Defendant€Wintersà  àà p àSolicitor€General€Ð   @ Ð50€North€Front€Street,€Suite€999ÌMemphis,€TN38103à h àà À àò òà  àà p àPETER€M.€COUGHLANÐ "0 Ðó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ ˆ#( Ðò òGLENN€I.€WRIGHTó óà h àà À àà  àà p à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÐ €$  ÐCounsel€for€Defendant€Thomasà  àà p à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ð x% Ð200€Jefferson€Avenue,€Suite€300à  àà p àNashville,€TN€€37243Ð p& ÐMemphis,€TN€38103Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òJOHN€W.€PIEROTTI€Ð `(  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àó óDistrict€Attorney€General€Ð X)ø! ÐÌò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àó óà h àà À àà  àà p àò òPAUL€F.€GOODMAN€Ð H+è!# Ðó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ @,à"$ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òJENNIFER€NICHOLSÐ 0.Ð$& Ðó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ (/È%' Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àCriminal€Justice€Center,€Suite€301Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à201€Poplar€Avenue€Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àMemphis,€TN€38103ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÐ  Ø8x/19 ÐÔ€°¦ø°ŠŠzrÔò òòòà@÷÷,DàOPINIONóóó óÔ€Šzrа°¦øÔˆÐ `  ÐÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ` àThe€Defendants,€Aaron€A.€Winters€and€Derwin€V.€Thomas,€appeal€as€of€rightÏtheir€multiple€convictions€in€the€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court.€€In€this€appeal,ÏDefendants€present€the€following€issues€for€review:€€ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à€€€Ô‡RûRŠŠzrÔ€Ô#†ŠzrŠRRû˜#ÔI.à0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àWas€the€evidence€sufficient€to€convict€theÐ ìŒ  ÐDefendants€(Defendant€Wintersðð€Issue€III€andÏDefendant€Thomasðð€Issues€I€and€V);€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌ€à8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à€€Ô‡RûRŠŠzrÔ€Ô#†ŠzrŠRRûÁ#ÔII.à0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àWas€Defendant€Winters€entitled€to€have€his€trialÐ º  Ðsevered€from€that€of€Defendant€Thomas€(DefendantÏWintersðð€Issue€IV);Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à€Ô‡RûRŠŠzrÔ€Ô#†ŠzrŠRRûà#ÔIII.à0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€admitting€two€photographsÐ Hè Ðof€the€victims€(Defendant€Thomasðð€Issue€II);Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à€€IV.à0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àDid€the€State€violate€the€òòBradyóó€rule€(DefendantÐ ~ ÐThomasðð€Issue€III);Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à€€€V.à0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€admitting€letters€written€byÐ f! ÐDefendant€Thomas€as€statements€against€interestÏ(Defendant€Thomasðð€Issue€IV);Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à€€VI.à0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€allowing€lay€witness€AlvinseÐ F%æ ÐFitzgerald€to€testify€about€€Defendant€ThomasððÏhandwriting€(Defendant€Thomasðð€Issue€VI);Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à€VII.à0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€admitting€DefendantÐ &)Æ ÐWintersðð€statement€to€police€and€his€letter€to€a€thirdÏparty€(Defendant€Wintersðð€Issues€I€and€II);Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àVIII.à0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€allowing€the€victimsðð€familyÐ -¦## Ðmembers€to€testify€regarding€the€loss€of€the€victimsÏ(Defendant€Thomasðð€Issue€VII);€and€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à€€IX.à0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àWere€the€aggravators€found€by€the€jury€in€imposingÐ æ0†'' ÐDefendant€Thomasðð€sentence€supported€by€theÏevidence€(Defendant€Thomasðð€Issue€VIII).Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓcÓÌAfter€a€careful€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgments€of€the€trial€court.€€Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÐ ž9>00 ÐÓ  Óà @` àòòProcedural€HistoryóóÐ `  ÐÓ ÓÌà ` àOn€February€8,€1996,€the€Shelby€County€Grand€jury€returned€indictmentsÏagainst€Defendant€Winters,€Defendant€Thomas,€and€Sekour€Barnes€for€especiallyÏaggravated€kidnapping€(two€counts€each),€conspiracy€to€commit€murder€(two€countsÏeach),€especially€aggravated€robbery,€and€first€degree€murder€(two€counts€each).€ÏDefendants€Winters€and€Thomas€were€tried€together.€€The€State€asked€for€aÏseverance€of€Barnes€which€was€granted.€€Wintersðð€first€attorney€filed€a€motion€toÏsever€but€was€later€allowed€to€withdraw€from€the€case.€Wintersðð€second€attorneyÏapparently€did€not€pursue€that€motion.ÌÌà ` àThe€jury€found€Defendant€Winters€guilty€of€two€counts€of€especiallyÏaggravated€kidnapping€and€two€counts€of€first€degree€murder.€€The€jury€foundÏDefendant€Thomas€guilty€of€two€counts€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping,€oneÏcount€of€especially€aggravated€robbery,€and€two€counts€of€first€degree€murder.€ÏDuring€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial,€the€trial€court€allowed€the€following€twoÏaggravating€circumstances€to€be€submitted€to€the€jury:€that€the€murders€wereÏcommitted€while€Defendants€were€engaged€in€committing€especially€aggravatedÏkidnaping€and€that€the€murders€were€committed€while€Defendants€were€engaged€inÏespecially€aggravated€robbery.ÌÌà ` àDefendant€Winters€received€two€consecutive€sentences€of€life€with€theÏpossibility€of€parole€for€the€murder€convictions.€€He€was€also€sentenced€to€two€25Ïyear€sentences€on€the€kidnapping€convictions€to€be€served€concurrently€with€eachÏâ âother€and€the€murder€convictions.€€Defendant€Thomas€received€two€consecutive€œÐ à7€.0 Ðsentences›€of€life€without€parole€for€each€murder€conviction.€€He€was€also€sentencedÏâ âto€25€years€on€each€kidnapping€conviction€and€25€years€on€the€robbery€convictionÏto€be€served€œconcurrently›€to€each€other€and€the€murder€convictions.€€€BothÏDefendants€filed€timely€notices€of€appeal.ÌÌà@÷÷(DàòòFactual€SummaryóóˆÐ °  ÐÌà ` àOn€May€30,€1995,€seventeen€year€old€Ira€West€and€sixteen€year€old€MalikÏRashad€Asberry€were€killed€in€an€abandoned€house€in€Memphis,€Tennessee.€€BothÏwere€shot€at€point€blank€range.Ìà ` àÌà ` àKenji€Lewis€testified€that€he€spoke€with€the€victims€earlier€that€day€and€thatÏthey€said€they€were€going€to€meet€Defendant€Winters€and€smoke€dope.€€There€wasÏtestimony€that€in€reality,€Defendant€Winters€was€angry€at€the€victims€for€calling€hisÏmotherððs€house€and€disturbing€her.ÌÌà ` àRodney€Edwards,€a€fourteen€year€old€boy€who€sold€drugs€for€DefendantÏThomas,€testified€that€he€met€Defendant€Thomas€on€the€afternoon€of€the€murder€toÏdrop€off€drug€money.€€He€then€asked€Defendant€Thomas€if€he€would€have€a€smokeÏwith€him€and€Defendant€Thomas€agreed.€€A€car€drove€up€at€that€moment€withÏDefendant€Winters,€Sekour€œBarnes,›€the€two€victims,€and€two€other€men€inside.€ÏEdwards,€the€two€Defendants,€the€two€victims,€and€Barnes€then€proceeded€to€walkÏto€an€abandoned€house€which€was€frequented€by€drug€dealers€and€users.Ì̛̜Ð Ð9p02 Ðà ` àEdwards€testified€that€he€heard€Defendant€Thomas€tell€Defendant€Winters,Ïð ðLetððs€get€these€œn_€_€_€_€_s›€in€the€house€so€we€can€kill€them.ðð€€The€Defendants€wentÏaround€to€the€front€entrance,€and€Defendant€Winters€soon€returned€brandishing€aÏgun€at€the€two€victims.€€Defendant€Winters€then€began€to€force€the€victims€into€theÏabandoned€house€through€a€side€window.€€One€of€the€victims€said€he€would€giveÏthem€anything€he€had€on€him,€but€he€was€grabbed€by€the€neck€and€physically€forcedÏinto€the€house€through€the€window€by€Barnes.€€Barnes€never€actually€entered€theÏhouse.€€At€some€point,€victim€Asberryððs€necklace€was€taken€from€him.€€Edwards€didÏnot€enter€the€house,€but€he€did€hear€the€victims€begging€and€pleading€for€their€lives.€ÏEdwards€then€heard€four€shots€and€he€and€Barnes€ran€in€opposite€directions€fromÏthe€abandoned€house.ÌÌà ` àA€neighbor€found€the€bodies€lying€one€on€top€of€the€other€in€the€kitchen.€€TheÏkitchen€was€used€as€a€bathroom€by€drug€users€and€was€covered€with€human€waste.€ÏVictim€Asberryððs€shoes€had€been€stolen.€€One€victim€had€been€shot€in€the€head€andÏthe€other€had€been€shot€in€the€neck.€€€€ÌÌà ` àAfter€receiving€a€crimestoppers€tip,€investigators€searched€Room€230€of€aÏnearby€Motel€6.€This€was€the€room€Defendant€Thomas€lived€in€and€other€peopleÏfrequented.€€Defendant€Thomasðð€wallet€and€victim€Asberryððs€necklace€were€found€inÏthe€same€drawer€in€Room€230.ÌÌà ` àDefendant€Winters€was€present€when€the€search€was€conducted€at€the€MotelÏ6.€€He€told€police€he€knew€about€the€murder€of€two€juveniles,€and€he€took€them€to€aÏâ âvacant€house€where€the€murder€weapon€was€hidden.€€Winters€was€then€taken€in€for€œÐ à7€.0 Ðquestioning,›€and€he€admitted€to€being€at€the€scene€when€the€victims€were€killed.€€HeÏâ âdescribed€how€each€victim€was€shot,€and€how€someone€in€the€room€removed€victimÏMalikððs€shoes.€€He€claimed€he€had€nothing€to€do€with€the€murders,€but€was€only€aÏwitness€to€the€murders.ÌÌà ` àTerrance€Fitzgerald€testified€that€he€was€with€the€Defendants€after€the€murderÏand€that€he€heard€Defendant€Thomas€talking€to€Defendant€Winters€about€killing€twoÏboys.€€Fitzgerald€overheard€Defendant€Thomas€say€that€one€was€shot€in€the€neckÏand€the€other€in€the€head.€€Defendant€Thomas€was€talking€about€the€struggling€ofÏone€of€the€victims€and€how€he€had€to€be€shot€more€than€once.€€Fitzgerald€alsoÏtestified€that€Defendant€Thomas€took€his€revolver€with€him€when€he€left€the€Motel€6Ïon€the€morning€of€the€murders.ÌÌà ` àAlvinsea€Fitzgerald,€the€sister€of€Terrance€Fitzgerald€and€former€girlfriend€ofÏSekour€Barnes,€testified€that€she€knew€Defendant€Thomas€because€a€friend€of€hersÏhad€previously€dated€Defendant€Thomas.€€Her€friend€and€Defendant€Thomas€wroteÏletters€to€each€other€and€Fitzgerald€testified€that€she€read€Thomasðð€letters€and€knewÏhis€handwriting.€€Soon€after€the€murders,€she€began€receiving€anonymousÏthreatening€letters€telling€her€to€keep€her€brother€Terrance€quiet.€€She€recognizedÏthe€handwriting€as€being€that€of€Defendant€Thomas.Ì€Ìà ` àSekour€Barnes€testified€at€trial€as€to€several€letters€given€to€him€in€jail€byÏDefendant€Thomas€through€an€intermediary.€€The€letters€he€discussed€wereÏreviewed€by€a€State€handwriting€expert€and€determined€to€be€written€by€DefendantÏâ âThomas.€€The€letters€were€written€to€Mike€Boyland,€Tadarrio€Britt€(a.k.a.€Tech€9),€as€œÐ à7€.0 Ðwell›€as€men€nicknamed€G.€Wayne,€Yo€Yo,€and€Crazy€Legs.€€In€each€of€these€letters,Ïâ âDefendant€Thomas€tells€the€recipient€what€to€say,€in€detail,€about€their€knowledgeÏof€the€murders.€€The€letters€ask€recipients€to€memorize€their€trial€testimony,€toÏcontact€him€after€they€speak€with€investigators,€and€to€destroy€the€envelopes€butÏkeep€the€letters€to€prepare€for€their€testimony.€€The€letters€also€promise€help€in€theÏfuture€for€this€testimony.€€The€trial€court€admitted€the€letters€into€evidence€asÏstatements€against€interest.ÌÌÓ  ÓòòI.€€Sufficiency€of€the€EvidenceóóÐ à€ ÐÓ`7ÓÓ  Ó(Defendant€Thomasðð€Issues€I€and€V;€Defendant€Wintersðð€Issue€III)òòÐ Ðp ÐÓ¶7ÓÌA.€€Murder€conviction€as€to€Defendant€ThomasÌà ` àóóDefendant€Thomas€alleges€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€convict€himÐ   @ Ðof€murder€because€the€proof€only€placed€him€at€the€scene€of€the€crime.€€(SufficiencyÏof€the€evidence€as€to€Defendant€Thomasðð€robbery€conviction€is€discussed€in€IssueÏIX.)€€òòÐ p& ÐÌà ` àóóWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€theÐ P*ð " Ðstandard€is€whether,€after€reviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÏprosection,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€theÏcrime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319€(1979).€Ð  0À&( ÐThis€standard€is€applicable€to€findings€of€guilt€predicated€upon€direct€evidence,Ïcircumstantial€evidence€or€a€combination€of€direct€and€circumstantial€evidence.€ÏòòState€v.€Matthewsóó,€805€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€On€appeal,€theÐ ð5,. Ðâ âState€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€inferences€œÐ à7€.0 Ðtherefrom.›€€òòState€v.óó€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€Because€aÐ `  Ðâ âverdict€of€guilt€removes€the€presumption€of€innocence€and€replaces€it€with€aÏpresumption€of€guilt,€the€accused€has€the€burden€in€this€court€of€illustrating€why€theÏevidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict€returned€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòState€v.Ð 0Ð ÐTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914€(Tenn.€1982);€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476Ð  À Ð(Tenn.€1973).ÌÌà ` àQuestions€concerning€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€toÏbe€given€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidence,€areÏresolved€by€the€trier€of€fact,€not€this€court.€€òòState€v.€Pappasóó,€754€S.W.2d€620,€623Ð Ðp Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1987).€€Nor€may€this€courtÐ À` Ðreweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence.€€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€835.€€A€jury€verdictÐ °P Ðapproved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€Stateððs€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflictsÏin€favor€of€the€State.€€òòGraceóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€476.€€Ð "0 ÐÌà ` àMoreover,€a€criminal€offense€may€be€established€exclusively€by€circumstantialÏevidence.€òòDuchac€v.€Stateóó,€505€S.W.2d€237€(Tenn.€1973);€òòState€v.óó€òòJonesóó,€901Ð `(  ÐS.W.2d€393,€396€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Lequireóó,€634€S.W.2d€608€(Tenn.Ð P*ð " ÐCrim.€App.€1981).€However,€before€an€accused€may€be€convicted€of€a€criminalÏoffense€based€upon€circumstantial€evidence€alone,€the€facts€and€circumstancesÏ"must€be€so€strong€and€cogent€as€to€exclude€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€every€otherÏreasonable€hypothesis€save€guilt€of€the€defendant."€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€225€Tenn.Ð 2°(* Ð478,€470€S.W.2d€610€(1971);€òòJonesóó,€901€S.W.2d€at€396.€In€other€words,€"[a]€web€ofÐ 4 *, Ðguilt€must€be€woven€around€the€defendant€from€which€he€cannot€escape€and€fromÏâ âwhich€facts€and€circumstances€the€jury€could€draw€no€other€reasonable€inferenceÐ à7€.0 Ðsave€the€guilt€of€the€defendant€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt."€òòCrawfordóó,€470€S.W.2dÐ `  Ðat€613;€òòState€v.€McAfeeóó,€737€S.W.2d€304,€306€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€Ð P ð Ðâ âòòÌà ` àóóDefendant€Thomas€told€Defendant€Winters,€ð ðLetððs€get€these€œn_€_€_€_€_s›€in€theÐ 0Ð Ðhouse€so€we€can€kill€them.ðð€€Defendant€Thomas€then€went€to€the€front€entrance€ofÏthe€house€while€the€other€boys€forced€the€victims€œthrough›€the€window,€where€theyÏwere€ultimately€murdered.€€Defendant€Thomas€had€a€conversation€with€DefendantÏWinters€which€was€overheard€by€Terrance€Fitzgerald.€€In€that€conversation,ÏDefendant€Thomas€recalled€that€one€of€the€boys€was€shot€in€the€neck€and€the€otherÏin€the€head.€€Defendant€Thomas€also€said€that€one€of€the€victims€struggled€after€heÏwas€shot€and€had€to€be€shot€again.€€Fitzgerald€also€testified€that€before€DefendantÏThomas€left€the€Motel€6€on€the€morning€of€the€murders,€Thomas€took€his€revolverÏwith€him.€€We€find€that€there€was€certainly€ample€evidence€that€Defendant€ThomasÏshot€the€victims€in€the€abandoned€house.€€Furthermore,€numerous€letters€wereÏadmitted€into€evidence€written€by€Defendant€Thomas,€telling€witnesses€to€memorizeÏthe€ð ðscriptsðð€he€gave€them€about€what€to€say€in€regards€to€the€murders.€€A€rationalÏjury€could€have€believed€that€Defendant€Thomas€did€kill€the€victims.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.òòà  àÐ P*ð " ÐÌB.€€Anthony€questionÌà ` àóóThe€issue€presented€for€our€consideration€here€is€whether€the€DefendantsððÐ  0À&( Ðconvictions€for€aggravated€kidnapping€violate€due€process€and€the€mandate€ofòò€StateÐ 2°(* Ðv.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1991),€because€these€offenses€were€merelyÐ 4 *, Ðincidental€to€the€primary€purpose€of€committing€first€degree€murder€(and€aggravatedÏrobbery€as€to€Defendant€Thomas).€€€ÌÐ Ð9p02 Ðà ` àAddressing€the€due€process€concerns€of€whether€movement€incidental€to€anÏunderlying€crime€is€sufficient€to€support€a€separate€kidnapping€conviction,€theÏappellate€courts€of€this€state€have€recognized€that€inherent€in€every€rape,€robbery,Ïand€murder€is€a€period€of€confinement€or€restraint.€Thus,€the€courts€are€left€toÏdetermine€"whether€the€confinement,€movement,€or€detention€is€essentially€incidentalÏto€the€accompanying€felony€and€is€not€.€.€.€sufficient€to€support€a€separate€convictionÏfor€kidnapping€.€.€.€in€and€of€itself€.€.€.€."€òòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€306.€In€an€opinionÐ    Ðreiterating€the€principles€of€òòAnthonyóó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€the€focus€of€anÐ ð  ÐòòAnthonyóó€inquiry€is€upon€the€"purpose€of€the€removal€or€confinement€and€not€theÐ à€ Ðdistance€or€duration€.€.€.€."€òòState€v.€Dixonóó,€957€S.W.2d€532,€535€(Tenn.€1997).€If€theÐ Ðp Ðpurpose€of€the€removal€or€confinement€is€"not€necessary€for€the€commission€of€theÏ[underlying€felony],"€the€kidnapping€is€not€incidental€to€the€other€offense.€òòIdóó.€WeÐ °P Ðnote,€however,€that€there€is€no€bright„line€rule€for€determining€whether€the€removalÏor€confinement€of€a€victim€to€another€place€is€part€of€the€accompanying€felony.€€òòSeeóóÐ "0 ÐòòState€v.€Joseph€Tipleróó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9611„CR„00384,€fn.€4,€Shelby€CountyÐ €$  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Jan.€30,€1998),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.,€Oct.€12,Ð p& Ð1998)€€The€test€remains€a€subjective€one,€based€upon€the€facts€of€each€case.€€òòIdóó.€Ð `(  ÐIf€the€"movement€or€confinement€was€beyond€that€necessary€to€consummate€theÏ[underlying€offense],"€the€next€inquiry€is€"whether€the€additional€movement€orÏconfinement:€(1)€prevented€the€victim€from€summoning€help;€(2)€lessened€theÏdefendant's€risk€of€detection;€or€(3)€created€a€significant€danger€or€increased€theÏvictim's€risk€of€harm."€òòDixonóó,€957€S.W.2d€at€535€(òòcitingóó€òòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€306).Ð 2°(* ÐAffirmative€answers€to€these€inquiries€support€affirmance€of€a€contemporaneousÏœkidnapping.›€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòDixonóó,€957€S.W.2d€at€535.€€€Applying€the€due€processÐ ð5,. Ðâ âprinciples€announced€in€òòAnthonyóó€and€under€the€guidelines€of€òòDixonóó,€we€conclude€œÐ à7€.0 Ðthat›€the€separate€convictions€for€first€degree€murder€as€to€both€Defendants,Ïâ âaggravated€robbery€as€to€Defendant€Thomas,€and€aggravated€kidnapping€as€to€bothÏDefendants€in€the€case€before€us€was€proper.€€Ìòòà ` àÌà ` àDefendant€ThomasóóÐ  À Ðà ` àDefendant€Thomas€argues€that€his€convictions€for€especially€aggravatedÏkidnapping€and€especially€aggravated€robbery€were€based€on€a€single€criminalÏepisode.€€He€does€not€allege€that€his€convictions€for€first€degree€murder€andÏespecially€aggravated€kidnapping€were€one€episode.€€In€òòAnthonyóó,€the€supreme€courtÐ à€ Ðnoted€that€every€robbery€involved€some€confinement€and,€therefore,€necessarilyÏincluded€a€kidnapping.€€It€ruled,€however,€that€the€legislature€did€not€intend€for€everyÏrobbery€to€also€be€a€kidnapping.€€òòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€306.€€The€supreme€courtÐ °P Ðexplained€the€limitation€of€the€òòAnthonyóó€rule€in€òòDixonóó€as€follows:Ð   @ ÐÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àThe€òòAnthonyóó€decision€should€only€prevent€the€injusticeÐ "0 Ðwhich€would€occur€if€a€defendant€could€be€convicted€ofÏkidnaping€where€the€only€restraint€utilized€was€thatÏnecessary€to€complete€the€act€of€rape€or€robbery.€ÏAccordingly,€any€restraint€in€addition€to€that€which€isÏnecessary€to€consummate€rape€or€robbery€may€support€aÏseparate€conviction€for€kidnapping.€Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌ€òòDixonóó,€957€S.W.2d€at€534„35.€€Ð P*ð " ÐÓÛYÓÌà ` à€We€first€find€that€the€movement€of€victim€Asberry€was€beyond€that€necessaryÏto€consummate€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€Defendant€Thomas€could€haveÏrobbed€victim€Asberry€outside€of€the€vacant€house.€€We€next€find€that€the€act€ofÏforcing€victim€Asberry€into€the€house€effectively€prevented€the€victim€fromÏsummoning€help,€lessened€Defendant€Thomasðð€risk€of€detection,€and€increased€theÏâ ârisk€of€harm€to€the€victim.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòDixonóó,€957€S.W.2d€at€535.€€We€conclude€thatÐ è6ˆ-/ Ðthe€evidence€was€certainly€sufficient€to€warrant€separate€convictions€for€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery€and€especially€aggravated€kidnapping.€€Ìâ âÌà ` àòòDefendant€WintersÐ 0Ð Ðà ` àóóDefendant€Winters€specifically€argues€that€the€ð ðevidence€at€trial€presents€aÐ  À Ðscenario€where€the€kidnapping[s]€[were]€purely€incidental€to€the€offense[s]€ofÏmurder.ðð€€Although€Defendant€Thomas€did€not€specifically€raise€this€issue€as€relativeÏto€the€murder€convictions,€the€following€analysis€certainly€applies€to€him€as€well.€€WeÏbelieve€the€two€acts€of€kidnapping€were€significant€enough,€in€and€of€themselves,€toÏwarrant€independent€prosecution.€€The€murders€could€have€been€committed€outsideÏthe€vacant€house.€€After€refusing€to€obey€the€order€to€get€inside€the€house,€theÏvictims€were€forcibly€moved€where€the€Defendants€wanted€them€to€go€which€wasÏinside€the€house.€€We€also€find€that€bringing€the€victims€into€an€abandoned€houseÏwhere€they€would€be€out€of€sight€was€clearly€intended€to€prevent€the€victims€fromÏsummoning€for€help€and€to€lessen€Defendantsðð€chances€of€getting€caught.€€ThereÏwas€testimony€that€the€victims€pleaded€for€their€lives€before€they€were€killed.€ÏAccording€to€that€testimony,€these€œpleadings›€were€barely€audible€outside€the€house,Ïfurther€insuring€that€Defendantsðð€would€not€be€caught.€€Likewise,€being€inside€theÏvacant€house€certainly€increased€the€victimsðð€risk€of€harm.€€The€record€is€clear€thatÏDefendantsðð€actions€were€not€necessary€for€the€commission€of€the€murders.€€AsÏsuch,€separate€convictions€for€first€degree€murder€and€especially€aggravatedÏkidnapping€were€appropriate.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.òòÐ 2°(* ÐÌÌÌÓ  ӜРÐ9p02 ÐII.›€€SeveranceóóÐ `  Ð(Defendant€Wintersðð€Issue€IV)ÌÓÔdÓÌà ` àDefendant€Winters€claims€in€this€issue€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€hisÏmotion€to€sever€his€case€from€that€of€Defendant€Thomas€and€that€this€denial€wasÏprejudicial.€€Defendant€Wintersðð€first€attorney€filed€a€motion€to€sever€on€April€10,Ï1996.€€The€attorney€withdrew€from€the€case€on€May€8,€1997,€and€it€appears€from€theÏrecord€that€Defendant€Wintersðð€second€attorney€did€not€pursue€the€motion.€€NoÏargument€was€ever€heard€on€the€matter,€and€no€order€was€entered€by€the€trial€courtÏeither€granting€or€denying€the€motion.€€ÌÌà ` àFirst,€because€this€issue€was€not€included€in€Defendant€Wintersðð€€motion€forÏnew€trial,€it€has€been€waived€for€purposes€of€appeal.€€A€criminal€defendant€mayÏmake€an€appeal€of€right€if€the€issue€ð ðwas€specifically€stated€in€a€motion€for€a€newÏtrial;€otherwise€such€issues€will€be€treated€as€waived.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e).€ÏSecond,€it€is€a€well-established€rule€of€law€that€the€failure€to€bring€a€motion€to€theÏattention€of€the€trial€court€constitutes€a€waiver€of€the€issue.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Lockeóó,€771Ð `(  ÐS.W.2d€132,€138€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1989);Ð P*ð " ÐòòState€v.€Aucoinóó,€756€S.W.2d€705,€709€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€489Ð @,à"$ ÐU.S.€1084,€109€S.€Ct.€1541,€103€L.€Ed.€2d€845€(1989);€òòState€v.€Kinneróó,€701€S.W.2dÐ 0.Ð$& Ð224,€227€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1985);€òòState€v.€Burtisóó,Ð  0À&( Ð664€S.W.2d€305,€310€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1983).€€ItÐ 2°(* Ðwas€the€responsibility€of€Defendant€Winters€to€pursue€the€motion€and€obtain€a€rulingÏby€the€trial€court€on€the€motion.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€waived€for€this€reason€asÏwell.€€€€ÌòòÓ  ӜРÐ9p02 ÐIII.›€€Admissibility€of€PhotographsóóÐ `  Ð(Defendant€Thomasðð€Issue€II)ÌÓ‚lÓà ` àÌà ` àDefendant€Thomas€alleges€in€this€issue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admittingÏcertain€photographs€of€the€victims.€€The€trial€court€found€the€photographs€were€notÏparticularly€gruesome€and€were€necessary€for€the€Stateððs€case.ÌÌà ` àRule€403€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€states€that€relevant€evidenceÏmay€be€excluded€if€its€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€danger€of€unfairÏprejudice.€€Rule€401€states€that€evidence€is€relevant€if€it€has€a€tendency€to€make€theÏexistence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€moreÏprobable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€without€the€evidence.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€ÏWhether€to€admit€relevant€photographs€is€within€the€discretionary€authority€of€the€trialÏcourt€and€will€not€be€reversed€absent€a€clear€showing€of€an€abuse€of€discretionÏappearing€on€the€face€of€the€record.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€949Ð €$  Ð(Tenn.€1978).òòÐ p& ÐóóÌà ` àThe€photographs€in€question€show€the€two€victims€in€a€filthy€kitchen€lying€nextÏto€each€other.€€We€find€the€photographs€to€be€relevant€for€several€reasons.€€First,Ïthey€show€where€the€two€boys€were€killed.€€The€filth€and€decay€in€the€kitchen€isÏevident€from€the€pictures.€€This€supports€the€Stateððs€reasoning€that€the€two€victimsÏwould€not€be€in€that€room€willingly,€but€were€rather€forced€into€the€room€at€gun€point.€ÏSecondly,€the€photographs€show€how€the€boys€were€killed,€in€that€Ira€West€mustÏhave€been€killed€before€Malik€Asberry€because€Asberry€is€lying€on€Westððs€arm.€€ThisÏâ âcorroborates€Defendant€Winterððs€statement€to€police€about€the€order€in€which€the€œÐ à7€.0 Ðboys›€were€killed.€€Third,€the€photographs€show€premeditation.€€While€the€deadlyÏâ âwounds€themselves€are€not€clearly€shown,€it€is€evident€the€boys€were€shot€in€theÏhead,€indicating€the€shooter€intended€the€boys€to€die.€ÌÌà ` àWhile€there€is€blood€in€one€of€the€photographs,€the€wounds€themselves€areÏnot€shown.€€The€photographs€are€not€œpleasant;›€however,€they€are€not€the€type€ofÏpictures€that€so€inflame€a€jury€as€to€make€the€prejudice€of€their€admission€outweighÏtheir€probative€value.€€Therefore,€we€find€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretionÏin€admitting€them.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÓ  ÓòòÌIV.€€Brady€violationóóÐ À` ÐÓQvÓÓ  Ó(Defendant€Thomasðð€Issue€III)ÌÓvÓÌà ` àIn€this€issue,€Defendant€Thomas€claims€that€the€State€withheld€certainÏexculpatory€material€from€the€defense€until€trial.€€Specifically,€Defendant€ThomasÏargues€that€a€police€report€containing€a€typed€sheet€of€crimestopper€tips€should€haveÏbeen€provided€to€the€defense.€€The€tip€he€focuses€on€is€one€that€alleges€that€ð ðYo,ððÏa€fourteen€year€old€black€male,€had€blood€on€his€pants€at€the€rear€of€the€vacantÏhouse€at€the€time€of€the€murder,€and€that€William€ð ðBootyðð€Davis€was€seen€armed€withÏa€.38€caliber€pistol€the€day€of€the€murders.€€The€anonymous€tip€stated€that€theÏvictims€had€ð ðviolated€the€codeðð€and€were€therefore€killed.ÌÌà ` àIn€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€87,€83€S.€Ct.€1194,€1196-97,€10€L.€Ed.€2dÐ 4 *, Ð215€(1963),€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€"suppression€by€the€prosecution€ofÏâ âevidence€favorable€to€an€accused€upon€request€violates€due€process€where€the€œÐ à7€.0 Ðevidence›€is€material€either€to€guilt€or€to€punishment,€irrespective€of€the€good€faith€orÏâ âbad€faith€of€the€prosecution."€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòHartman€v.€Stateóó,€896€S.W.2d€94,€101€(Tenn.Ð P ð Ð1995).€In€order€to€establish€a€due€process€violation€under€òòBradyóó,€four€prerequisitesÐ @ à Ðmust€be€met:€€ÌÓÓÌÓÿ{ÓÓÓà8 ` àà0¸ ` (#` (#à1.à0¸ (#¸ (#àThe€defendant€must€have€requested€the€informationÐ ¸  Ð(unless€the€evidence€is€obviously€exculpatory,€in€whichÏcase€the€State€is€bound€to€release€the€information€whetherÏrequested€or€not);€€Ð (#(# ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à2.à0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àThe€State€must€have€suppressed€the€information;€€Ðð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à3.à0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àThe€information€must€have€been€favorable€to€theÐ à€ Ðaccused;€and€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à4.à0¸ Ð ¸ Ð àThe€information€must€have€been€material.€€ÐÈhÐ Ð  ÐÓ(|ÓÌòòState€v.€Edginóó,€902€S.W.2d€387,€389€(Tenn.€1995).€The€burden€of€proving€a€òòBradyóóÐ °P Ðviolation€rests€with€the€defendant,€and€the€violation€must€be€proven€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€òòIdóó.Ð "0 ЀÌà ` àIn€determining€the€materiality€of€undisclosed€information,€a€reviewing€courtÏmust€establish€whether€"in€[the]€absence€[of€the€information]€[the€defendant]€receivedÏa€fair€trial,€understood€as€a€trial€resulting€in€a€verdict€worthy€of€confidence."€òòKyles€v.Ð P*ð " ÐWhitleyóó,€514€U.S.€419,€434,€115€S.€Ct.€1555,€1566,€131€L.€Ed.€2d€490€(1995).€InÐ @,à"$ Ðother€words,€evidence€is€considered€material€only€if€there€is€a€reasonable€probabilityÏthat€had€the€evidence€been€disclosed€to€the€defense,€the€results€of€the€proceedingÏwould€have€been€different.€€òòEdginóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€390„91€(citation€omitted).€€Ð 2°(* ÐÌà ` àGenerally,€if€there€is€only€a€delayed€disclosure€of€information,€in€contrast€to€aÏâ âcomplete€failure€to€disclose€exculpatory€information,€òòBradyóó€normally€does€not€apply,€œÐ à7€.0 Ðunless›€the€delay€itself€causes€prejudice.€òòSylvester€Smith€v.€Stateóó,€C.C.A.€No.Ð `  Ðâ â02C01-9801-CR-00018,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Dec.€28,€1998),Ð P ð Ðòòperm.€to€appeal€grantedóó€(Tenn.,€July€6,€1999);€òòState€v.€Sydney€M.€Ewingóó,€C.C.A.€No.Ð @ à Ð01C01-9612-CR-00531,€Davidson€County,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€June€19,Ï1998),€òòvacated€and€reenteredóó,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Aug.€18,€1998);€òòStateÐ  À Ðv.€Jim€Inmanóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01-9201-CR-00020,€Campbell€County€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð °  ÐApp.,€Knoxville,€Nov.€23,€1993)€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.,€Knoxville,€April€4,Ð    Ð1994).€€In€this€case€it€is€clear€that€the€delay€in€providing€the€report€did€not€in€itselfÏcause€prejudice.ÌÌà ` àIn€the€present€case,€Defendant€filed€a€Motion€for€Exculpatory€Evidence€whichÏwas€granted€by€the€trial€court.€€However,€the€written€police€reports€were€not€given€toÏDefendant€Thomas€until€after€the€testimony€of€Captain€Houston€at€trial.€€In€theÏreports€was€a€crimestoppers€tip€page€where€an€alleged€eyewitness€identified€twoÏindividuals€as€being€involved€in€the€homicides.€€The€police€report€provides€inÏpertinent€part€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àThe€shooters€involved€in€the€drive€by€shooting€live€in€theÏLongview€Heights€area.€€The€murder€victims€found€hadÏviolated€the€code€and€had€to€be€beaten€up.€€Involved€in€theÏdouble€homicide€are:Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓ‡ˆÓÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à1.€€ð ðYoðð,€male€black,€14€years€old,€4'3",€looks€like€a€baby,Ïbelieve€to€live€on€Effie€Street€in€a€Duplex.€€Caller€statedÏthat€he€saw€ð ðYoðð€with€blood€on€his€white€pants€directly€inÏthe€rear€of€the€vacant€house€where€the€bodies€wereÏdiscovered€(Effie).€€Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#à2.€€William€ð ðBootyðð€Davis,€male€black,€16€years€of€age,Ïunknown€home€address€is€the€shooter€who€was€last€seenÏarmed€with€a€.38€caliber€pistol.€€He€is€under€Juvenile€CourtÏhouse€arrest€and€can€be€easily€found.à  àÐð5,.¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓ§‰ÓÌÐ Ø8x/1 Мà ` àAlthough€this€issue€will€be€determined€on€the€basis€of€prejudice€rather€than€aÏstrict€òòBradyóó€analysis,€we€emphasize€that€the€police€reports,€containing€the€pertinentÐ P ð Ðcrimestopper€tip,€should€have€been€turned€over€by€the€State€to€the€defense€prior€toÏtrial.€€The€withheld€information€in€this€case€was€clearly€favorable€to€the€defendantÏsince,€on€its€face,€two€totally€different€suspects€are€implicated€in€the€murders.€ÏNormally€the€defense€should€have€had€the€opportunity€to€conduct€further€andÏpossible€fruitful€investigation€prior€to€trial€regarding€the€leads€given€in€aÏcrimestoppers€tip.€ÌÌà ` à€The€State€argues€that€the€reports€were€not€ð ðmaterialðð€because€they€wouldÏhave€been€inadmissible€at€trial.€€The€State€is€correct€in€that€the€reports€themselves,Ïas€police€reports,€would€have€been€hearsay€inadmissible€at€trial.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ð °P Ð801(c)€and€803(8),€Advisory€Commission€Comment.€€€The€primary€problem€with€theÏadmissibility€of€police€reports€is€that€the€report€is€hearsay€made€up€of€opinion€orÏconclusion€not€based€on€personal€knowledge.€€òòSeeóó€òòMcBee€v.€Williamsóó,€405€S.W.2dÐ €$  Ð668,€671€(Tenn.€1966).€€In€addition,€the€crimestopper€tip,€even€though€contained€inÏa€police€report,€is€not€admissible€as€a€business€record€where€the€declarant€is€notÏunder€a€business€duty€to€give€the€information.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Allenóó,€692€S.W.2d€651,Ð P*ð " Ð653€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€However,€the€State€is€wrong€in€its€assumption€thatÏbecause€the€report€would€have€likely€been€inadmissible€at€trial€that€it€was€thereforeÏnot€material€information.€The€prosecutionððs€duty€to€disclose€is€not€limited€in€scopeÏto€ð ðcompetent€evidenceðð€or€ð ðadmissible€evidence.ðð€€The€duty€extends€to€ð ðfavorable€ÌÌÌâ âÐ à7€.0 Ðinformationðð€unknown€to€the€accused.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€845€S.W.2d€228,€232„Ð `  Ðâ â33€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€ÌÌà ` àNevertheless,€since€the€information€was€revealed€to€defendant,€albeit€duringÏtrial,€we€must€determine€whether€the€delayed€disclosure€was€prejudicial.€€AsÏdiscussed€in€Issue€I,€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€against€Defendant€Thomas€wasÏoverwhelming,€and€we€do€not€find€that€disclosure€would€have€altered€the€outcomeÏin€Defendant€Thomasðð€case.€€We€note€for€the€record€that€defense€counsel€made€noÏeffort€at€the€hearing€for€motion€for€new€trial€to€show€that€the€evidence€was€material.€ÏDefendant€put€on€no€witnesses€to€support€the€allegations€in€the€crimestopper€tip€andÏno€one€testified€as€to€what€efforts,€if€any,€were€made€to€pursue€the€alleged€ð ðleadsððÏof€the€named€individuals€in€the€tip,€and€whether€anything€of€value€came€from€thatÏeffort.€€Therefore,€Defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.€€ÌÓ  ÓòòÌV.€€Admissibility€of€LettersóóÐ €$  Ð(Defendant€Thomasðð€Issue€IV)ÌÓ÷—ÓÌà ` àIn€this€issue,€Defendant€Thomas€contests€the€admissibility€of€letters€he€wroteÏwhile€he€was€incarcerated.€€The€letters€were€written€to€various€people€telling€themÏwhat€to€say€about€the€murders€and€his€own€whereabouts€on€the€day€of€the€murder.€ÏThey€contain€specifics€about€the€murder,€including€details€witnesses€are€specificallyÏsupposed€to€remember€as€well€as€things€witnesses€are€supposed€to€ð ðforget.ðð€€TheyÏwere€admitted€against€Defendant€Thomas,€who€did€not€testify€at€trial,€as€statementsÏagainst€interest.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€804(b)(3).Ð ð5,. Ðñ) ññ% ñÐ à7€.0 Ðñ% ññ) ñà ` àWe€note€that€we€are€unable€to€locate€a€specific€motion€in€the€record€regardingÏthe€suppression€of€the€letters€or€an€order€granting€or€denying€such€motion.Ð Ð9p02 ÐApparently›€though€there€was€a€pre„trial€hearing€on€the€matter€held€January€12,€1998.€Ïœñ* ññ# ñÌñ# ññ* ñAfter›€reviewing€the€transcript€from€the€hearing,€it€is€unclear€whether€DefendantÏThomasðð€objection€to€the€admissibility€of€the€letters€was€based€on€relevancy€orÏhearsay.€€Regardless,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€the€letters€would€be€admissible€at€trialÏas€statements€against€interest.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€804(b)(3).€€At€trial,€DefendantÐ  À ÐThomas€did€not€object€to€the€introduction€of€the€letters.€€€€€€ÌÌà ` àAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€letters,€we€find€that€they€were€not€offered€for€theÏtruth€of€the€matter€asserted€(and€thus€not€qualifying€as€hearsay),€but€to€show€thatÏDefendant€Thomas€lied€in€an€attempt€to€cover€up€his€participation€in€the€murder.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€801(c).€€In€other€words,€the€record€reflects€that€the€StateÐ À` Ðessentially€intended€to€prove€the€falsity€of€the€letters,€not€the€truthfulness€of€theÏmatters€asserted€in€them.€€Even€if€the€letters€could€be€characterized€as€hearsay,€theyÏcould€have€been€properly€admitted€as€admissions€against€a€party„opponent.€€òòSeeóóÐ "0 ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€803(1.2)(A).€€Although€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€reasoning€admittingÏthe€letters€into€evidence,€we€find€the€letters€were€clearly€admissible€for€the€reasonsÏstated€above.€€We€also€find€that€the€letters€were€relevant€because€a€jury€couldÏcertainly€have€inferred€that€Defendant€Thomas€was€attempting€to€get€potentialÏwitnesses€to€perjure€themselves€to€show€that€he€was€innocent€of€the€charges€againstÏhim.€€Also,€Defendantððs€other€allegations€within€this€issue,€that€the€State€used€theÏwrong€process€for€admission€of€the€letters€and€that€some€letters€never€reached€theÏintended€recipients,€are€meritless.€€ÌÌÌÌÓ  Óœòòñ+ ñÐ Ð9p02 Ðñ+ ñVI.›€€Lay€Witnessððs€Identification€of€Defendantððs€HandwritingóóÐ `  ÐÓF²ÓÓ  Ó(Defendant€Thomasðð€Issue€VI)ÌÓà²ÓÌà ` àDefendant€Thomas€alleges€that€the€testimony€of€Alvinsea€Fitzgerald€identifyingÏhis€handwriting€in€threatening€letters€he€wrote€to€her€was€improper€as€the€properÏfoundation€was€not€laid.ÌÌà ` àA€lay€witness€must€be€familiar€with€the€signature€and€handwriting€of€the€makerÏby€personal€experience€in€order€to€identify€the€maker€of€a€handwriting.€€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€901(b)(2);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€839€S.W.2d€54,€70€(Tenn.€œ1992).€€The›€competencyÐ Ðp Ðof€the€witness€to€identify€particular€handwriting€is€a€matter€for€the€trial€judgeððsÏdiscretion.€€òòIdóó.€at€70.€€Ð °P ÐÌà ` àMs.€Fitzgerald€lived€with€Defendant€Thomas,€his€girlfriend,€and€others€forÏseveral€months€in€1993€and€1994.€€During€that€time,€she€would€be€present€whenÏDefendant€Thomas€would€write€ð ðloveðð€letters€to€his€girlfriend.€€Ms.€Fitzgerald€testifiedÏthat€she€saw€him€write€these€letters€ð ðnumerousðð€times.€€She€also€testified€that€sheÏwould€read€these€letters€as€well.€€However,€on€cross„examination,€she€testified€thatÏshe€saw€him€write€his€girlfriend€only€one€or€two€times.€€ÌÌà ` àThe€Rules€of€Evidence€do€not€list€a€minimum€number€of€times€that€a€witnessÏmust€have€seen€a€particular€handwriting€before€being€able€to€testify€as€a€lay€witnessÏregarding€that€handwriting.€€In€the€instant€case,€Ms.€Fitzgerald€lived€in€the€sameÏhouse€with€Defendant€Thomas,€saw€him€write€letters€to€his€girlfriend,€and€positivelyÏâ âidentified€Defendant€Thomasðð€handwriting€at€trial.€€We€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€œñ, ñÐ à7€.0 Ðñ, ñabuse›€its€discretion€in€allowing€Fitzgerald€to€give€her€opinion€that€the€threateningÏâ âletters€were€in€Defendant€Thomasðð€handwriting.€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  ÓòòVII.€€Admission€of€Statement€to€Police€and€RedactionóóÐ 0Ð Ð(Defendant€Wintersðð€Issue€I€and€II)¹ÓºÓà ` àÌòòA.€€Wintersðð€StatementóóÐ    Ðà ` àIn€this€issue,€Defendant€Winters€first€alleges€that€his€statement€should€notÏhave€been€admitted€into€evidence.€€Specifically,€Defendant€Winters€concedes€it€wasÏproper€to€read€the€statement€to€the€jury,€but€alleges€it€was€error€to€allow€the€jury€toÏtake€it€into€the€deliberation€room€because€it€would€place€undue€emphasis€on€theÏstatement€to€the€exclusion€of€all€other€evidence.€ÌÌà ` àIn€the€statement,€Defendant€Winters€admits€his€presence€at€the€crime€sceneÏbut€claims€he€was€just€a€bystander.€€The€statement€was€properly€admitted€as€anÏadmission€of€a€party€opponent.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(1.2)(A).€€Furthermore,€theÐ p& Ðtrial€court€properly€admitted€the€statement€as€substantive€evidence.€€DefendantÏWintersðð€claim€that€the€jury€would€ð ðimproperlyðð€use€the€evidence€is€whollyÏunsupported€by€the€record.€€The€jury€was€properly€instructed€and€is€presumed€toÏhave€followed€its€instructions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Blackmonóó,€701€S.W.2d€228,€233€(Tenn.Ð 0.Ð$& ÐCrim.€App.€1985).ÌÌòòB.€€Redaction€of€Wintersðð€LetteróóÐ 4 *, Ðà ` àDefendant€Winters€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€redacting€a€portionÏâ âof€a€letter€he€wrote€to€a€third€party.€€He€claims€that€the€redacted€version€prejudiced€œñ- ñÐ à7€.0 Ðñ- ñhim›€in€the€eyes€of€the€jury€because€it€turned€an€exculpatory€statement€into€a€ð ðvirtualÏâ âconfession.ðð€€The€original€version€reads€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àI€Aaron€Winters€[Defendant]€admit€that€me€and€RodneyÏEdwards€was€at€the€crime€scene€and€Sekour€Barnes€didnððtÏhave€anything€to€do€with€it€and€was€not€around€at€the€timeÏthat€this€happen.€€And€Derwin€V.€Thomas€[Defendant]€wasÏthe€trigger€man€and€said€he€was€going€to€have€me€andÏRodney€Edwards€killed€if€we€said€anything.€€And€this€wasÏgiven€without€any€threats€of€promises.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓ£ÀÓà ` àÌThe€redacted€version€is€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àI€Aaron€Winters€[Defendant]€admit€that€me€and€RodneyÏEdwards€was€at€the€crime€scene€and€Sekour€Barnes€didnððtÏhave€anything€to€do€with€it€and€was€not€around€at€the€timeÏthat€this€happen.€€And€this€was€given€without€any€threatsÏor€promises.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÓªÂÓÌà ` àThe€statement€of€a€non„testifying€co„defendant€implicating€another€defendantÏviolates€the€constitutional€rights€of€the€latter€in€a€joint€trial.€€òòBruton€v.óó€òòUnited€Statesóó,Ð   @ Ð391€U.S.€123,€88€S.€Ct.€1620,€20€L.€Ed.€2d€476€(1968).€€The€ruling€in€òòBrutonóó€is€basedÐ "0 Ðon€the€acknowledgment€that€ð ðadmission€of€a€co„defendantððs€confession€implicatingÏa€defendant€at€a€joint€trial€constitutes€prejudicial€error€even€though€the€trial€court€mayÏgive€clear,€concise€and€understandable€instructions€that€confessions€could€only€beÏused€against€a€co„defendant€and€must€be€disregarded€with€respect€to€any€otherÏdefendant.ðð€€òòState€v.€Baileyóó,€865€S.W.2d€7,€9€(Tenn.€1993).€€Post„òòBrutonóó€cases€makeÐ @,à"$ Ðit€clear,€however,€that€the€rule€in€òòBrutonóó€does€not€apply€to€confessions€which€do€notÐ 0.Ð$& Ðimplicate€the€nonconfessing€defendant.€€€Also,€òòBrutonóó€does€not€apply€to€confessionsÐ  0À&( Ðfrom€which€all€references€to€the€nonconfessing€defendant€have€been€effectivelyÏdeleted€provided€that,€as€deleted,€the€confession€will€not€prejudice€the€confessingÏdefendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòWhite€v.€Stateóó,€497€S.W.2d€751€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€€We€note€œñ. ñÐ ð5,. Ðâ âÐ à7€.0 Ðñ. ñthat›€Defendant€Thomas€would€not€have€a€òòBrutonóó€challenge€to€the€redactedÐ `  Ðâ âœstatement.ñ/ ñ€€ñ/ ñ›ÌÌà ` àAfter€a€careful€review€of€the€Defendant€Wintersðð€original€statement€and€theÏredacted€version€of€his€statement,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€trial€court€did€not€errÏin€redacting€the€statement€in€the€manner€it€did.€€A€redacted€statement€will€beÏprejudicial€if€it€ð ðso€alters€its€substance€or€deletes€therefrom€substantially€exculpatoryÏinformation.ðð€€òòDenton€v.€Stateóó,€945€S.W.2d€793,€801„02€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)Ð ð  Ð(citations€omitted).€€Although€the€original€version€does€say€that€Defendant€ThomasÏwas€the€ð ðtrigger€man,ðð€which€would€be€considered€exculpatory€information,€thisÏinformation€is€essentially€redundant€in€that€the€jury€was€presented€evidence€thatÏDefendant€Thomas,€not€Defendant€Winters,€was€the€actual€shooter.€€DefendantÏWinters€admits€only€in€the€statement€to€being€at€the€scene€of€the€crime€with€BarnesÏand€Edwards.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà ` àÌòòÓ  ÓVIII.€€Victim€Impact€EvidenceóóÐ p& ÐÓQÍÓÓ  Ó(Defendant€Thomasðð€Issue€VII)ÌÓ¢ÍÓà ` àÌà ` àDefendant€Thomas€alleges€in€this€issue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€theÏfamilies€of€the€victims€to€testify€during€the€sentencing€phase€for€the€murderÏconvictions.€€Defendant€Thomas€acknowledges€that€this€was€not€a€death€penaltyÏcase,€as€the€State€withdrew€its€intention€to€seek€the€death€penalty€on€August€8,Ï1997,€but€nonetheless€asserts€ð ðthe€law€regarding€victim€impact€in€capital€casesÏshould€apply€to€all€cases.ðð€€Ìâ âÐ à7€.0 Ðà ` àœNeither€Defendant›€Thomas€œnor›€Defendant€œWinters›€objected€to€the€witnessesððÏâ âtestimony€at€the€sentencing€hearing€until€after€they€had€testified.€€Therefore,€thisÏissue€should€be€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€However,€even€if€substantivelyÐ @ à Ðaddressed,€this€issue€is€meritless.€€First,€this€was€not€a€capital€case€so€the€victimÏimpact€evidence€was€clearly€admissible.€€Second,€our€supreme€court€recently€heldÏthat€victim€impact€evidence€and€argument€is€permissible€under€both€the€UnitedÏStates€and€Tennessee€constitutions.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Nesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€872,€889Ð    Ð(Tenn.€1998).€€In€addition,€the€court€held€that€such€evidence€is€permissible€under€theÏTennessee€capital€sentencing€statute€because€it€is€ð ðrelevant€to€punishment.ðð€€òòIdóó.€Ð à€ ÐEven€if€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€was€a€capital€case,€after€reviewing€the€victim€impactÐ Ðp Ðtestimony€in€light€of€the€guidelines€set€forth€in€òòNesbitóó,€our€conclusion€that€theÐ À` Ðtestimony€is€admissible€would€be€the€same.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.¹Ó  ÓòòÌIX.€€Aggravators€and€SentencingóóÐ "0 ÐÓKÔÓÓ  Ó(Defendant€Thomasðð€Issue€VIII)ÌÓ¢ÔÓà ` àÌà ` àIn€his€final€issue,€Defendant€Thomas€argues€that€the€aggravators€wereÏinsufficient€to€support€the€sentences€of€life€without€parole€and€that€the€sentences€areÏexcessive.€€€Because€this€issue€was€not€included€in€Defendant€Thomasðð€€motion€forÏnew€trial,€it€has€been€waived€for€purposes€of€appeal.€€A€criminal€defendant€mayÏmake€an€appeal€of€right€if€the€issue€ð ðwas€specifically€stated€in€a€motion€for€a€newÏtrial;€otherwise€such€issues€will€be€treated€as€waived.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e).€€EvenÏaddressed€on€the€merits,€however,€it€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌÌœòòñ0 ñÐ Ð9p02 Ðñ0 ñA.›€€AggravatorsóóÐ `  Ðà ` àThe€jury€found€that€one€murder€was€committed€while€Defendant€Thomas€wasÏengaged€in€the€commission€of€aggravated€kidnapping€and€aggravated€robbery.€€TheÏaggravating€circumstance€found€by€the€jury€on€the€second€count€of€murder€was€thatÏthe€murder€was€committed€while€Defendant€Thomas€was€engaged€in€aggravatedÏkidnapping.€€First,€as€we€discussed€in€Issue€I,€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€wasÏmore€than€sufficient€to€convict€him€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping.€€Second,€weÏlikewise€find€the€evidence€sufficient€to€support€the€aggravator€that€the€murder€wasÏcommitted€during€the€perpetration€of€a€robbery.€€Defendant€Thomas€alleges€that€theÏgold€herringbone€necklace€found€in€his€hotel€room€was€not€properly€identified.€ÏRodney€Edwards€testified€that€victim€Asberryððs€gold€herringbone€necklace€was€takenÏfrom€him€before€he€was€killed.€€At€trial,€victim€Asberryððs€sister,€Jennifer,€testified€thatÏthe€necklace€found€in€Defendant€Thomasðð€drawer€was€in€fact€her€brotherððs€necklace.€ÏIn€making€this€identification,€the€victimððs€sister€testified€that€the€necklace€wasÏdistinctively€dented€in€many€places.€She€said€the€victim€dented€it€purposely€to€makeÏit€look€different€from€his€two€sistersðð€necklaces.€€In€addition,€she€testified€the€claspÏwas€not€functioning€properly.€€The€herringbone€necklace€found€in€Thomasðð€hotelÏroom€had€distinctive€dents€and€a€broken€clasp.€€This€was€sufficient€evidence€fromÏwhich€the€jury€could€have€concluded€that€the€necklace€was€that€of€victim€Asberryððs.ÌÌà ` àDefendant€Thomas€also€alleges€that€proper€identification€could€not€be€madeÏbecause€the€officer€who€recovered€the€necklace€did€not€tag€it€on€the€day€it€wasÏfound.€€Apparently€Lieutenant€Rogers€secured€the€necklace€in€a€safe€overnight€andÏthen€tagged€it€the€next€day.€€Defendant€Thomas€implied€during€cross„examinationÏâ âof€Lieutenant€Rogers€that€someone€could€have€gone€to€the€property€division€of€the€œñ1 ñÐ à7€.0 Ðñ1 ñpolice›€station,€broken€into€the€safe,€removed€œthe›€necklace€that€was€there,€and€putÏâ âthe€victimððs€necklace€in€place€of€the€one€taken.€€However,€we€find€that€the€fact€theÏnecklace€was€in€the€secure€area€overnight,€that€it€was€tagged€the€next€day,€and€thatÏthe€officer€stated€it€looked€like€the€necklace€he€recovered€from€Defendant€ThomasððÏhotel€room,€was€sufficient€to€establish€the€identity€of€the€necklace.ÌÌà ` àDefendant€Thomas€also€alleges€that€even€if€the€necklace€was€properlyÏadmitted€into€evidence,€no€jury€could€have€tied€it€to€him€because€there€were€otherÏpeople€who€may€have€been€staying€in€his€hotel€room.€€The€necklace€was€found€inÏthe€room€where€Thomas€lived€and€in€the€same€drawer€as€Thomasðð€wallet.€€A€juryÏcould€have€concluded€that€Defendant€Thomas€put€the€necklace€there€with€his€walletÏwhen€he€returned€to€the€room€and€emptied€his€pockets.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€theÏaggravator€that€the€Defendant€committed€a€robbery€during€the€murder€was€properlyÏapplied.ÌÌòòB.€€Sentencingóó€Ð p& Ðà ` àDefendant€Thomas€presents€no€argument€on€this€issue€and€fails€to€even€citeÏany€authority,€and€therefore,€this€issue€should€be€waived.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð P*ð " Ð27(a)(7).€€He€simply€œstates›€that€he€was€not€the€leader,€he€had€a€minimal€criminalÏrecord,€and€he€received€an€honorable€discharge€from€the€military.€€Nevertheless,€weÏwill€address€the€merits€of€this€issue.ÌÌà ` àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length,€range,€or€the€manner€of€service€ofÏa€sentence,€this€court€has€a€duty€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€the€sentence€withÐ ð5,. Ðâ âa€presumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.€œñ2 ñÐ à7€.0 Ðñ2 ñCode›€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€the€affirmativeÏâ âshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€andÏall€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ð @ à Ð1991).€€There€are,€however,€exceptions€to€the€presumption€of€correctness.€€First,€theÏrecord€must€demonstrate€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€andÏall€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòId.óó€€€Second,€the€presumption€does€not€applyÐ °  Ðto€the€legal€conclusions€reached€by€the€trial€court€in€sentencing.€€Third,€theÏpresumption€does€not€apply€when€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏpredicated€upon€uncontroverted€facts.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€898€S.W.2d€742,€745€(Tenn.Ð à€ ÐCrim.€App.€1994),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.€(Tenn.€1995).€€Ð Ðp ÐÌà ` àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of:€(1)€The€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€theÏtrial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€theÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€any€mitigating€or€enhancing€factors;€(6)Ïany€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€the€defendantððsÏpotential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€&€„¼210;€òòsee€State€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).Ð P*ð " ÐÌà ` àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€having€given€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€facts€and€principles€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,€and€thatÏthe€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€then€we€mayÏnot€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€different€result.€€òòState€v.Ð ð5,. Ðâ âFletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€ñ2 ñœñ2 ñÐ à7€.0 Ðà ` àConsecutive€sentences€(unless€mandated€by€statute€or€rule)€should€beÏâ âimposed€only€after€the€proof€establishes€(1)€that€the€terms€imposed€are€reasonablyÏrelated€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed;€(2)€the€sentence€is€necessary€toÏprotect€the€public€from€further€criminal€acts€by€the€offender;€and€(3)€that€theÏdefendant€meets€at€least€one€of€the€criteria€as€set€forth€in€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„35„115(b).€€òòState€v.€œWilkersonóó,›€905€S.W.2d€933€(Tenn.€1995).€Ð °  ÐÌà ` àIn€sentencing€Defendants€Thomas€and€Winters€to€consecutive€sentences,€theÏcourt€stated€the€following:€€ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àThe€[c]ourt€would€further€order€as€to€each€of€theÏdefendants,€and€the€[c]ourt€finds€based€on€all€the€evidenceÏin€the€case,€the€type€of€activity,€the€[c]ourt€finds€from€theÏproof€that€they€seem€to€be€very€dangerous€actors€who€doÏhave€the€potential€for€and€the€danger€of€being€a€danger€toÏthis€community€and€a€danger€to€other€parties€and€a€dangerÏapparently€under€the€present€circumstances.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓåðÓÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àThe€[c]ourt€finds€that€the€murder€charges€as€to€eachÏdefendant€should€be€run€consecutive,€one€to€the€other,Ïand€the€other€offenses€would€be€run€concurrent€with€thoseÏcharges.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà ` àÌÓÓÌà ` àBased€on€the€foregoing,€the€trial€court€obviously€found€Defendant€Thomas€toÏbe€a€dangerous€offender.€€However,€a€finding€that€a€defendant€is€a€dangerousÏoffender,€standing€alone,€will€not€justify€consecutive€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.Ð 8-Ø#% ÐBradenóó,€867€S.W.2d€750€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.€Woodsóó,€814€S.W.2d€378Ð (/È%' Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€A€finding€that€an€extended€sentence€is€necessary€toÏprotect€the€public€against€further€criminal€conduct€by€the€defendant€and€that€theÏconsecutive€sentences€must€reasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€the€offensesÏcommitted€must€also€be€established.€€òòWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€939.€€Ð è6ˆ-/ ÐÐ Ø8x/1 Ðà ` àWe€find€from€the€record€that€consecutive€sentencing€is€necessary€to€protectÏthe€public€against€further€criminal€conduct€by€Defendant€and€that€consecutiveÏsentencing€is€reasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€Ð @ à ÐDefendantððs€behavior€demonstrated€a€contemptible€lack€of€concern€for€human€lifeÏand€an€absence€of€human€decency.€€Defendant€Thomas€took€the€two€boys€to€theÏabandoned€house€under€the€pretense€of€smoking€dope.€€The€victims€were€thenÏforced€into€the€house,€and€after€listening€to€their€pleas€for€mercy,€Defendant€ThomasÏbrutally€shot€them.€€One€of€the€victims€said€he€would€give€them€anything€theyÏwanted,€but€they€were€killed€anyway€and€left€to€die€on€a€floor€covered€in€humanÏwaste.€€Even€from€behind€bars,€Defendant€Thomas€has€continued€to€make€threatsÏclearly€demonstrating€the€need€to€be€confined.€€Although€the€trial€court€failed€toÏmake€the€specific€findings€required€by€òòWilkersonóó,€we€find€that€the€appropriate€factorsÐ °P Ðare€clearly€present€under€our€power€of€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð   @ Ð401(d).€€Consecutive€sentencing€is€appropriate€in€this€case.€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà ` àBased€on€all€the€foregoing,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ìñ2 ñœñ2 ñœÌñ2 ñ›ñ2 ñ›ÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌñ2 ñœñ2 ñÌCONCUR:Ìñ2 ñœñ2 ñÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€Judgeà h àÐ 4 *, ÐÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€œJudge›